Kissner v. Polk Hospital

[BSBeane]

Kissner v. Polk Hospital

This great case really needed a place in this forum. It had subtlety, law, experts, balance, and really cool, useful evidence.

Ok, maybe I'm exaggarating a bit. But frankly, as only a second year mocker, Kissner is by far my favorite case. A lot of people said last year that they wished the case were better, and that they were nostaligic for older cases, such as Thornhill. What makes a great case? And what made Kissner a good/not so great case?

And finally, tell any and all fun stories from '04-'05.

[TheTiger]

This may be old school, but I prefer cases where someone is dead.  It heightens the emotional impact of the trial, for both sides in a criminal case.  

Kissner was sort of "eh."  I prefer Thornhill due to the story and the witnesses; you had Terry Gerch, the hard-nosed cop who jumped the gun searching everywhere, Ashley Thornhill, the aggressive accounting associate on his/her way up and who could very easily have shot her boss, and my favorite piece of physical evidence in a trial, the Secure-A-Card log and all the wonderful hearsay battles it inspired.

[UMCane*GWB]

Thornhill was definitely a great one.... The secure a card log made it so you actually had to look hard at the case to see some of its key evidence. They didnt just give it to you...

[andrewbaker]

Kissner was an absolutely terrible case.

[CrowleyM]

Kissner was my least favorite case.

State of Midlands vs. JJ Thompson is my favorite. Perhaps that's just the nostalgia of it being my first college case, or because I haven't liked the other cases too much.

The Harmon case was mildly entertaining, though it was like a bad rehash of Thompson with the head injury and alternative causation.

I hated not having a bifurcated trial in the Kissner case. Listening to Gerkins was horrible.

[RadicallyLiberal]

As far as what makes a great case, I'd have to say I grow more nostalgic for Harmon each day.  On Harmon, the State could sit down feeling like the burden was met, like summary judgment would be inappropriate.  The defense could stand up and meet their own burden or raise reasonable doubt.  Each side could end their case in chief with success which made it a great case.

I've never seen anyone sit down in Perry after the P Case in Chief having met their burden.

[FundamentalPrecepts]

I agree with TheTiger and Don regarding Thornhill. There were some great characters in that case, and I don't mean those of the Francis Leo variety. They were just high-powered and ambitious people, some of whom would stab anyone in the back to get a client or promotion. I don't condone such behavior, of course, but it was a damn fun case.

Thornhill was arguably just an evil person, which is why my team had so much fun with that witness. But there was so much evidence suggesting that he didn't do it, and so much over which to be righteously indignant as the defense.

EDIT: Everest Experience was also a great case. It had a great storyline, and there were so many viable witness combos for both sides. I rarely saw the same case presented in any trial.

[Scooby Doo]

I've never seen anyone sit down in Perry after the P Case in Chief having met their burden.

yeah especially after walsh gets crossed... yeesh...


i have to disagree with some of y'all. i really liked the kissner case, as well as arguing for damages. i thought by nationals we were trying the hell out of that lawsuit...

[Big Dave]

Kissner was alright, but Harmon was my favorite, by far.  Maybe it's just because I got to play a big, dumb, loud, sarcastic, (sometimes) angry defendant and still look credible, or maybe it's because I got to give a big, loud, sarcastic and (sometimes) angry closing.  But it was a fun case.

[JayZ]

I can honestly say I've liked the case less and less every year.  Thompshon was the first case I tried and it was a solid, interesting case with  several theories and witness line-ups to use.

Harmon was good soap opera with fun characters, even if the underlying case was weaker.

Kissner lacked any compelling characters or particularly interesting arguments.

Perry is dull as sin, and started with ridiculous imbalance issues that have only been resolved by stripping more and more meaningful argument from the case.  I mean, granted, I've only observed a half dozen scrimmages and six rounds this year but, lord, every single round seems identical right down to the themes teams are using.

[felixfuissem]

having been to three tournaments so far, it's just really sort of depressing... Kissner had an extremely limited lineup, but at the same time you could do a lot of different things with it; I saw really interesting uses of Leos throughout the year (even beyond character points), and the fact that every team could define IED slightly different forced teams to improvise...

But even ignoring the sameness issue, what's killing me about these trials is how much is totally extraneous. Honestly, P's case is almost entirely the Walsh direct, and D's case is almost entirely the Walsh cross, with maybe some Gustavo thrown in. What was great about Kissner was that every witness provided a piece of the puzzle, and you really needed all of them to build your theory. This case really doesn't have that, which makes most of the case in chief feel a little meaningless.

[DrCornelius]

Listening to Gerkins was horrible.

To the contrary, I think that Girken was one of the best witnesses to come out of recent AMTA cases.  There was such a clear delineation between witnesses who were portraying the character well and those who were portraying it poorly.  It came down to two questions: did the witness explain the economics such that an observer unfamiliar with the case could follow?  and does it sound like the witness's analysis make sense (rather than appearing straight out of his ass)?  Girken was very easy to screw up hardcore, but had incredible potential for an expert direct.

The other reason Girken was so great is that it took a legitimately great crossing attorney to give a legitimately great cross.  Girken crosses were an exercise in unpredictability and mastering them required asking tight, precise questions and adapting to the unexpected.  There was no "silver bullet" such as a memo about the witness's alcoholism, or him not being certified in forensic economics, or such nonsense--Girken crosses were simply a matter of an arrogant attorney matching wits with an equally arrogant professor.  It was spectacular.

[Quotequeen]

I can honestly say I've liked the case less and less every year.

Agreed, going back to Everest.

[Arpan]

Listening to Gerkins was horrible.

To the contrary, I think that Girken was one of the best witnesses to come out of recent AMTA cases.  There was such a clear delineation between witnesses who were portraying the character well and those who were portraying it poorly.  It came down to two questions: did the witness explain the economics such that an observer unfamiliar with the case could follow?  and does it sound like the witness's analysis make sense (rather than appearing straight out of his ass)?  Girken was very easy to screw up hardcore, but had incredible potential for an expert direct.

The other reason Girken was so great is that it took a legitimately great crossing attorney to give a legitimately great cross.  Girken crosses were an exercise in unpredictability and mastering them required asking tight, precise questions and adapting to the unexpected.  There was no "silver bullet" such as a memo about the witness's alcoholism, or him not being certified in forensic economics, or such nonsense--Girken crosses were simply a matter of an arrogant attorney matching wits with an equally arrogant professor.  It was spectacular.

You speak truth. I should add that a well played Girken was the only witness under whom you could make a legit damages claim in real court. Girken not only challenged your ability to write a clear direct and concise cross, it was essential in presenting a persuasive damages case.

[FundamentalPrecepts]

Agreed, going back to Everest.

I also agree, though I'll say that Everest wasn't a lot better than Thornhill. I also have friends who loved the case before Everest (Ellis, I believe), but I have only faint memories of it, as that was the year before my program existed.